Something Obama has right. He's asking the FCC to reclassify the internet as a public utility. AKA trying to make it so we don't get ****ed over for things like internet fast lanes and throttling. So that's nice. Too bad the FCC is an independent agency and can just ignore him. You can read the rest or even watch the video here...
I somewhat pride myself on being ideologically consistent; however, net-neutrality is one of those rare exceptions. I favor it.
Mao was wrong. Not all power comes from the barrel of a gun. Monopoly/oligopoly power isn't backed by government thugs with guns, yet it is still power over the average consumer. So you're not as ideologically inconsistent as you may think.
Please explain why you are for or aginst this proposal. I have read a few articles about it and I can see both sides of the argument. The problem I have is that I don't trust the government to stop here once they get the nose of the camel into the tent(i.e. regulating the internet). Additionally, once the government gets into the act there tends to be a tendency for big money and big corporations to engage in regulatory capture so that they are able to put up even more roadblocks to their competition via expensive government regulations. If you don't know what regulatory capture is Google it.
You mean like the Too Big To Fail Banks And financial oragnizations thet were bailed out with hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars thanks to the Federal Reserve and Treasury department? Yeah, you're right.....monopolies never exist with the blessing of the federal government.
The problem I have is that I distrust big business as much as I do big government. This is decidedly a "pick your poison" situation. I would be more inclined to oppose net neutrality if you had a legitimately free market insofar as ISP providers are concerned; however, nothing could be further from the truth. There is an absolute lack of competition in much of the United States with many regions having a single-provider only. This is often due to existing regulatory laws essentially giving ISPs a local monopoly. You also have to keep in mind how important the internet is to the free exchange of information, ideas, etc. The FCC doesn't need net-neutrality rules as an excuse to further regulate the internet -- they could do that anyway. The net-neutrality regulatory rules are actually very benign and even common sense, imo...ensuring that the internet remains free and open. The real fear, and there are clear indications this is the direction many of the large ISPs want to go, is that the internet will eventually become like cable TV. You pay for a "package of websites" in which you are granted certain access speeds while everything else is throttled. This is anti-consumer, and it's dangerous given the important of the internet. If I pay $80 for a 50/mbps connection then I ought to expect to get 50/mbps regardless of what websites I visit, the data I'm streaming, or the content of individual packets.
The existence of regional ISP monopolies is precisely the reason we need net-neutrality. Now, if the United States ever gets to the point where you have many service provider options then the need for net-neutrality would be mitigated. We're not there yet, and ISPs are trying to ensure that day never comes. The Time Warner/Comcast merger is just about the most dangerous potential merger in American history. I can't overstate that enough. You also have situations developing around the country where local communities are attempting to build their own local ISPs to compete with whatever single provider exists in that particular area, and the ISPs are lobbying very hard to make such moves illegal. I'd prefer a private ISP to one owned by my local government; however, if there is no other competition then I'm all for it.
First off, Ted Cruz is a goddamn idiot. He wouldn't know the internet from a hole in his head. http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11 Second, the Internet is a utility. I dare you to come up with a convincing reason to call it otherwise. Third, this never would have become an issue if Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, etc hadn't decided they wanted to milk the deal from both ends. That made everyone realize that there is almost never a situation where you can trust a content creator to be a neutral content provider. The government may be inefficient, but at least they aren't content creators and can truly be neutral about controlling the information flow.
I just don't trust the government to not start doling out perks to the bigger companies and then see the revolving door begin for members of the FCC being appointed to the boards of directors of the large ISP companies when they leave the government. I would actually rather see current anti-trust laws being applied to companies that try to squeeze out competition through the court system.
Nobody wants what you wrote to happen. And it won't with net neutrality. It'd be better it you read up on it yourself. You'd see the plan isn't for the government's interference. Ted Cruz Being an Idiot and why he's wrong. Obama's plan broken down.
I refuse to click on a Gawker Media link. However, Tone Loc is absolutely correct. This regulation isn't government interference; it's ensuring a small conglomerate of providers can't partition off the internet for consumers. I have a libertarian friend who put it very well on Facebook. I'll post here what he said, and he's a professional programmer.
So is it public broadband Obama proposes regulating or is it owned by the private ISP companies? I'm not understanding why it is a good thing that the government can tell the companies what they charge for their broadband product. If net neutrality is denied how does that effect end users ( private and business) ?
If net neutrality is defined solely has ensuring that access to content isn't restricted in some fashion, I'm all for that. If it doesn't allow for a internet provider to provide an environment where that equal access is available to all it's customers then I think there are some concerns. In Sicems example, if he pays for $80 for 50/mbs connection then he ought to get that, even if a gamer moves in next door and proceeds to fuel up on redbull and monster energy drinks and play online FPS games 24/7. The provider should have an ability to either restrict that users ability to consume other users bandwidth or charge for it so they can provide an infrastructure that provides for users to get what they pay for.
OK. I read it and there are certainly valid points made. Is the amount of bandwith finite or infinite? If a company requires faster streaming and more bandwith isn't it fair to charge them a higher rate? If they use more of he ISP companies product and pay them more money isn't it fair to cut them a special deal? That is how capitalism works. If ISP company A puts up all of these barriers and ads for subscribers to wade through aren't they going to switch their ISP companies? And if all ISP companies start doing this isn't that an opening for a new ISP company to come in and provide an alternative? Why do we need the government getting involved? The government never stops their intrusive behavior at the original point of concern. It is just against their nature to limit their intrusiveness once they get involved hence the camel's nose in the tent reference. Dwarthog's post makes some good points and I agree, if you pay for a specified amount of bandwith you should get that amount of bandwith at the speed it was adverstised at. I agree the ads are annoying but I understand why they are there.
I have no idea how you read that link and gathered any of what you just posted. The internet is a place of free flowing information. Companies should not obstruct that free flow of information. You pay for a certain speed and an amount of bandwidth. That's all the provider should provide. An open pipeline to that free flow of information at the speed and bandwidth you have paid for.
I am trying to understand your point of view. For most of us non-IT experts there doesn't seem to be an issue that would require government regulation. You can get upset all you want but it doesn't help support your point of view. 1.Who owns the bandwith that will be regulated? 2. Aside from being directed to webstites initially that you don't want to go to is there any other negative consequence? Will my bandwith service be slower than the rate I was promised if the ISP companies are not regulated? 3. Instead of directing me to an outside link maybe you can give us some examples of how a non-neutral internet policy adversley affects you personally or your business/profession. 4. Why shouldn't Netflix pay more for the bandwith they use? 5. If Netflix doesn't like what Comcast did why don't they(or a group of companies that use a lot of bandwith) start their own ISP provider and compete with Comcast? I am trying to see your point of view but so far I am not seeing anything that would make me want to support it. And the ad-hominem attacks against Cruz don't help. So here is your chance to convince people who are not as knowledgeable on this subject as you to support your point of view. Can you do it without insulting them ?
